Also known as: reasonably prudent persons · reasonable person · prudent person
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
The objective standard of conduct against which a person's actions are measured to determine negligence or criminal culpability. It requires conformity to the care a hypothetical person of ordinary prudence would exercise under similar circumstances, incorporating relevant personal characteristics such as age or expertise when they affect the ability to perceive or avoid risk.
Raymond Ramos left a loaded firearm on a low table in his living room while hosting a gathering. A guest's young child picked up the gun and accidentally shot another child. Prosecutors charged Ramos with involuntary manslaughter. The jury measured his conduct against the reasonably prudent person standard and found the failure to secure the weapon created a high risk of death that a person of ordinary prudence would have avoided.
Roland Rhodes told a supplier that he had knowingly used expired ingredients to cut costs. The supplier later recounted the statement at trial after Rhodes became unavailable. The court evaluated whether a reasonable person in Rhodes's position would have made the admission only if it were true because it exposed him to civil and criminal liability.
Ronald Reed failed to notice a large puddle of oil on the factory floor despite working there daily. A coworker slipped and suffered serious injuries. The prosecution argued Reed acted negligently because his failure to perceive the substantial risk constituted a gross deviation from the standard a reasonable person would observe in the same situation.
Ryan Roberts, a sitting judge, agreed to serve on the board of a nonprofit that frequently litigates before his court. A party moved to disqualify him. The reviewing body considered whether the activity would appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge's impartiality.
Roger Ramirez told a buyer the used car had never been in an accident when he knew it had sustained major frame damage. The buyer later discovered the truth and sought rescission. The court assessed whether the statement would likely induce a reasonable person to manifest assent to the purchase.
Ralph Richardson, age nine, rode his bicycle down a steep hill and collided with a pedestrian. The pedestrian sued for negligence. The court instructed the jury to measure the boy's conduct against that of a reasonably prudent person of like age, intelligence, and experience under similar circumstances.
In tort law the standard measures ordinary negligence for civil liability. In criminal law the same objective benchmark is used but requires a gross deviation from the care a reasonable person would observe before criminal negligence or recklessness supports liability.
The standard is adjusted to that of a reasonable person of like age, intelligence, and experience when the actor is a child. This modification recognizes that children lack the maturity and experience of adults.
No. Mental deficiency does not relieve an actor from liability for conduct that fails to conform to the standard of a reasonable person under like circumstances. The test remains objective.
A statement qualifies as against interest when a reasonable person in the declarant's position would have made it only if believing it true because the statement was strongly contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or penal interests.
…Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul , 373 U. S. 132, 146 (1963). While it is doubtful that any State, or indeed any reasonable person, would argue that it is wise policy to allow students to carry guns on school premises, considerable disagreement exists about how best to accomplish that goal. In this circumstance, the…